How many player on each team in QW CWs?

[taken]

After seeing the E3 2006 videos im wondering if QW will have more than 6 players per team?. QW seams a lot larger than WOLF ET (In E3 videos there are 3 choppers on one team and planes!!), where you max got 6 players on each team. If QW is going to be huge clan game, it shouldnt be more than 5 or 6 players per team. With a more players there is more kaos, harder to create a clans, harderer to have pcws / cws, attend LANS++++

I hope QW will be played 5on5 or 6on6, but this got me worried.

What do you think?

[MadMattUK]

I think they mentioned around 20 -30 players per side for public maps?

[SniperSteve]

24-32 players total.

12-16 per side. However the maximum limit is not locked, so server admins can do whatever they want. With the new faster servers that come out we could easily see 64 players... 32 per side

[makron]

It would be nice with some small nonvehicle maps like in RtCW and W:ET, I think many people would appriciate that.

[SniperSteve]

SD said they would be releasing a Mapping/Modding kit around the same time as the game release, so I'm sure you will see infantry only maps. (for example, you couldn't do Oasis with vehicles too well except for the very last part.)

Either way, they have said that for many(perhaps most?) objectives you will need to get out of your vehicle for, and other entire areas of the map are limited to what vehicles. I dont think we need to be concerned about the vehicles changeing the playstile in a negitive way.

[odium]

I think id like to see two or more clans joining a single side, fighting another 2 or more clans. That could work as well.

[Redh3lix]

It all depends on how they structure the game. I play a fair few FPS's, one of them is Battlefield 2 which works very well as a clan game, even with teams ranging from 8vs8 to 16vs16. BF2 works very well due to the squad system.

I doubt very much 6vs6 would be ET:QW's "norm", possibly slightly larger at 8 or 10 vs. purely because of the map sizes and complex environments. Of course I have absolutely no idea, but I'm just taking into consideration what I've seen so far.

Either way, it will prove an excellent clan game no matter

[jimb0]

Maps designed for 24-32 players, with no hard coded limit. So you can have as many people as you want as long as you have a powerful enough server.

[Apocalypse]

Think I read somewhere that it is still very playable as low as 6v6. Which is good because my clan is really small, and we would have problem if we need to field more per match...

[kamikazee]

I think id like to see two or more clans joining a single side, fighting another 2 or more clans. That could work as well.The clans should know each others tactics and play well together. (Just so they won't call each other names when they would lose)
But this might finally offer some use for fireteams!

[Nail]

people don't make games for clan wars, they make them for average gamers, otherwise it would be stick figures and box maps

[EB]

Yup, you can't make everyone happy.

I have read several posts over the past few days that are just nonsensical criticism.
- Almost as if certain people are mentally baking things up to complain about.
:nag:

Well, I am off to play poohsticks, bye
:tapir:

[Lanz]

Yup, you can't make everyone happy.

I have read several posts over the past few days that are just nonsensical criticism.
- Almost as if certain people are mentally baking things up to complain about.
:nag:

Well, I am off to play poohsticks, bye
:tapir:

It's called being over-hyped, so whatever they show, it will not be good enough. :moo:

[Got-JuicE]

Does anyone know if any leagues are accepting this game into their ladder like OGL, Cal or TWL?

[Redh3lix]

Does anyone know if any leagues are accepting this game into their ladder like OGL, Cal or TWL?

Not at this stage I wouldn't have thought.

[RX|marrafakka]

I think 10vs10 or 12vs12 is realistic. More difficult to be good about teamplay. This will be gaming's answer to soccer. :)

[Centurion]

Does anyone know if any leagues are accepting this game into their ladder like OGL, Cal or TWL?

There's already a bunch of buzz about Quakewars over at the BF2 forums of CAL. It seems most are pimping Quakewars and dissing 2142 which is nice to hear. :)

[Got-JuicE]

Good, when I played BF2 it was one of the buggest games ive ever played, the only thing I ever enjoyed in that game was driving the Jeep.

[Deth_Metal]

I think I will make a "clan-oriented" mod for QW, it will consist of stick figures whose damage is equal all over their bodies on box maps with only one kind of weapon on the whole map, no vehicles, no objectives, and no general point to there being such a mod![/sarcasm] :D

[Bongoboy]

We're balancing the maps for 24-32 players: we think this is the sweetest spot in terms of Optimal Busy-ness. That said, we've played quite a bit of 6v6 recently, and as long as everyone's comfortable with all the classes, vehicles, aircraft, deployables, weapons, items, skills etc, it works out pretty well.

There will be no server max players limit unless individual server admins choose to set one. We've found that in games with higher player numbers, players don't tend to stay alive very long. This is great for Death Match mayhem, less so for team objective gameplay. Hence, we reccommend but by no means urge 24-32 player per server, but you retain your Fiery Right to play the ET:QW any way you damn well please.

[Salvation]

but you retain your Fiery Right to play the ET:QW any way you damn well please.

werd. i was very pissed off when valve limited dod servers to allow a maximum of 32 players. it's up to the server admin, who's paying the bandwidth bill, to set the number of players allowed on his server... not valve. some people like to play chaotic games, while others like to play in a slower pace. if you don't like one or the other, then don't play on a server that sets the player limit to that.

good move, splash damage.

[EB]

but you retain your Fiery Right to play the ET:QW any way you damn well please. but you retain your Fiery Right to play the ET:QW any way you damn well please.
...so good I had to quote it twice.

[madness]

so..cheating is also okey ? "any way you damn well please"
jk :D

[Zyklon]

I think id like to see two or more clans joining a single side, fighting another 2 or more clans. That could work as well.

Oh man, that reminds me of the country fights they organized in JO... You had about 4-5 clans from the same country fighting 4-5 clans from another country in a big 75vs75. Too bad there were only 3 games, UK vs. France, UK vs. Germany, and Germany vs. France (UK won 'em all, french lost 'em all). That was fun :D.

[Centurion]

but you retain your Fiery Right to play the ET:QW any way you damn well please.

werd. i was very pissed off when valve limited dod servers to allow a maximum of 32 players. it's up to the server admin, who's paying the bandwidth bill, to set the number of players allowed on his server... not valve. some people like to play chaotic games, while others like to play in a slower pace. if you don't like one or the other, then don't play on a server that sets the player limit to that.

good move, splash damage.

Bandwidth isn't the only issue in fact I would say that for some games it's a smaller issue then the average users system specs. Maybe if you could play 40 player DOD it would cause almost all users to get sub 20 fps because of all the extra player models. I'm assuming there will be a max number for most people to run Quakewars smoothly as well wether that number is 40, 50, or 64 we'll have to wait and see.

At least with Quakewars we have a great track record for good netcode from Id. I run a ranked 64 man BF2 server and it consistently crashes during a night of playing with +60 players on it. That annoys the heck out of me, players and other 64 man server admins I know. If they say it can run with 64 players it should run smoothly and crash free on a server that exceeds their bandwith and server requirements.

[GUNNYGUN]

On my point of view. there have to be more than 20 peoples from each side/clan, but meanwhile the game has to have some elements of RTS. why? - read following: each side/clan has to have the commander which would see the some part of battlefield and shows directions and commands for units, but units can ignore them if the discipline in the clan is low :))))))))))))) SO what do you think about this future of this game???

[kamikazee]

Currently, there is no commander. It was planned, but was left out in the end.

In BF 2, you need one to strike more effectively all over the map. On the other hand, ET has its objectives-type gameplay which focuses the whole team most of the time, if they are no n00bs going for some little objective. I could see some small benefit, but I think this can be done by using VoIP as well.

[jah]

(...) we've played quite a bit of 6v6 recently, and as long as everyone's comfortable with all the classes, vehicles, aircraft, deployables, weapons, items, skills etc, it works out pretty well.(...)

PRAISE THE LORD!


btw, just some remarks from the posts above:
2 clans in the same team? whaa? it's so hard to get good teamplay with one clan.. having 2 clans in the very same team would be... :S you were kidding right?

someone said that developers don't publish games for clanplaying.. well.. grab your ET and fireup an etmain server. goto vote -> load competition settings. hey! competition support! wait! they even adopted the OSP competition mod (equivalent to etpro in W:ET) from RtCW! :P You must sell games. that's a known fact. But if you know how clans work, there's no reason for not supporting competitions/clans/whatever. It's even more good publicity/marketing/etc.


Splashdamage is a great team of developers (and very nice lads, except sock, because socks smell). And they're about to release the really first solid game with the doom3 engine (doom3 MP sucked :S, Q4 was screwed by Raven Software...).

I had doubts about clanplaying in QW (8vs8 and 12vs12 sounds really bad to me) and Bongoboy just made my day.



J

PS: release a "leaked" alpha demo already xD ehehe just kidding :)